HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-02-10MINUTES
HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS
Room B-8 .. - Civic Center
2000-Main Street
Huntington Beach, California,
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1982 - 1:15 P.M.
BOARD MEMBERS: Webb, Cooper, Vogelsang, Smith, Crosby
MINUTES: ON MOTION BY VOGELSANG AND"SECOND BY SMITH,-.
THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
JANUARY 27, 1982 WERE APPROVED -AS TRANSCRIBED, -
BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
—AYES: Webb, Cooper, Vogelsang, Smith
NOES:None
"ABSTAIN: = -Crosby
ABSENT: None
AGENDA ITEMS CONTINUED:
CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-4
:Applicant: Mr. Patrick L. Forrest
To permit a patio cover support -posts to encroach a maximum of
1,11" into the required 4'711, sideyard setback and the eave pro--.,'-,-,'
jection encroaching-to`within 12" instead'of the required 30" -,-,
of the side lot line, located at 18081 Upperlake Circle, zoned
Rl - Single Familv,Residence District.
Acting Chairman Cooper.informed the Board -that this request -is -a
Categorical Exemption; -:Class. 5, California Environmental Quality
Act, 1970.
Acting Secretary Webbstated that a verbal request was received.
from Mr.. Forrest.,requesting continuance of-Conditional,Exception
No: 82-4" for one' -(-l)•=iaeek, -to the meeting of February_ 17,-.1982,
as he was unable -to: -attend today's hearing.
-The public hearing was opened .by Acting Chairman -Cooper. There,
was no_ one present_tQ_:speA. for or against this proposal.
ON MOTION BY SMITH_AND-SECOND BY-CROSBY,--CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION
.NO. 82-41WAS CONTINUED. "TQ 'THE MEETING - OF FEBRUARY -17, 1982,
BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE c=- =`:`
Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments
February--10,-1982 -
Page Two
AYES:" Webb, Cooper, Vogelsang, Smith, Crosby
NOES:. ---None : -
-ABSTAIN: None
CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION No.;82-3 (Continued from 2/3/82)-
Applicant: Mr. .Bart Saglietto
To=permit a -six (6) foot high block wall, pool enclosure,- at-,
a 7'0' minimum front yard setback. Property located at 16911
Fairfield -Circle, zoned R1 - Single.Family Residence District.
The Chairman informed1the`Board,that this request -is a Categorical
Exemption;7Class.;5, California.Envir'onmental Quality -Act, 1970.
Acting Secretary WeW,outlined proposal with Mr. Bart Saglietto
present: -to _speak. -on his' -application.
The.public_hearing`was-openedyby Acting Chairman Cooper.
Mr.-Saglietto spoke saying.the reason for his request, changing-
-his fence from= -wood to .a -'six, (6) ft. masonry block wall fence- - _
at- 7' 0" 'front yard 'setback;'was to provide' a safer environment
for people when using his swimming pool. He stated his street -
is on. -a circle=and'that he has a fear of a car crashing through
-the fence ancl_entering'into his swimming pool while -someone may,
be swimming:
Mr.�'Saglietto was informed by the Board that the Code requires
a fifteen "(15)'` foot��setback�'and that when a field check was made
of. his property it revealed that Mr. Saglietto's fence was presently
-at a fourteen (14) foot setback in lieu of Code required fifteen
(15),ft. setback. Mr. Saglietto was asked by the Board if he would
be opposed to"maintaining his fence at the fourteen foot.setback
and -replacing -it with a concrete masonry wall which would provide
him with""such-protection.- He said "no", he wished to come out
seven feet'which'would'give him a nice yard and at the same time
would allow him to build his fence out as far.as his neighbor's.
He was told that'it was noted when the field check.was made of
his property that his neighbor's,'fence setback was illegal and
that soon the Land_Use Section of Development Services will be -
contacting the-owner.of the property next door with regard to
_ the illegal -setback of his neighbor's fence. Mr. Saglietto admitted
that when.his-.pool was constructed it should have been placed,
farther `back-bfi -his property.
The -public -hearing was closed. -
Board discussion ensued. •It was the concensus of the Board -:that.-
-sufficient hardship was not demonstrated. Mr. Saglietto stated
-2- BZA 2/10/82
Minutes:--H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments
February 10, 1982
Page Three
he would like to submit a revised plan including landscaping.
-The Board clearly -stated to -Mr. Saglietto that his revised plan -
must show the fence line altered.
ON MOTION BY WEBB AND SECOND BY VOGELSANG, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION
NO. 82-3 WAS CONTINUED FOR TWO-(2) WEEKS, TO THE MEETING OF--
FEBRUARY 24, 1982; BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Webb, Cooper, Vogelsang, Crosby
NOES: None -
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Smith
CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO.- 81-88 (Appeal) -
Applicant: -Kenneth E. Holmes
Acting -Chairman -Cooper informed the -Board -that this.request is
a Categorical Exemption, Class. 5, California Environmental Quality
Act,-1970.
There was no one present to speak for or against the proposal.'
It was stated by-Acting.Chairman Cooper that he and Acting Secretary
Webb were both-present'at the Planning Commission Meeting of ""
_February 2,'198201-.at which time the Planning Commission advised
:Mr. Holmes that he would have -to reappear with his revised plans,
toa Board of Zoning Adjustments Meeting for a recommendation
-to-be resubmitted,to.-.the Planning -Commission Meeting of February
IT, 1982. Mr. Holmes -was -informed by the Planning Commission of"
the date, time, and place of the Board of Zoning Adjustments Meeting
which was confirmed -by --a Public Notice from the BZA mailed on-,
February.4,•1982. Planning Commission also followed up,with-a
Public: Notice advising Mr. Holmes of the Meeting -of February'"17,
1982.
Acting Secretary -Webb reiterated the.history of this proposal
stating that on December 23, 1981, the Board of Zoning'Adjustments.
acted on Conditional Exception -No. 81-88, a request to permit the
relocation -of a garage door at 15.6 foot setback and a 12.foot
high wall -at . 15.6- foot : setback from the front property line," and :.:._
allow encroachment of a structure into the side yard setback,
This request was unanimously denied by the BZA and subsequently
appealed to the Planning Commission. She -further stated that'
at the February 2;-1982, Planning Commission Meeting,, the applicant.:
presented the Commi-ssion.with a revised site plan which would -also
require a conditional -exception: The Commission referred -the -revised
plan.back to the Board -of Zoning Adjustments-foi reconsideration.
Acting,Secretary.-Webb stated that Mr. Holmes met with Mr. Bellavia,
City Senior Planner,=--and.stated he was'going to make some modifications
to his revised -plan and would res,ubmit-them back ,for the Board!s:=
review by February-5, 1982.-
-3- BZA ,2/10/82
Minutes: H.B.-Board of Zoning Adjustments -
February 10, 1982
Page Four
-The Board of Zoning Adjustments reconsidered -the applicant's
revised plan -_dated; February_;_5;� 198-2;---for--Conditional=Exception
No. 81-88._The revise-dplan is a request fora relocation of a
garage with a 16 foot front yard setback. The garage does -not
meet -minimum interior dimension standards -which regtiirGSa.-�gaxage
to be 18 feet wide by 19 feet deep. :Further-, _-the_=garage would
-encroach into the side yard setback ;between-:+.«t-
The proposed wing wall will encroach five feet into the side -yard
setback at a height of ten feet.
`It`was�the consensus of tie` _r,;a that" the applicant failed to
demonstrate a -hardship as outlined in Section 9832 of the Ordinance
-Code; i thus,-:, ecommendi,ngs �denlal ..of:,LConditional- Exception No.
81:=88—bac-k to the Planning_Commission Meeting of February-17, 1982.
:ON_MOT_I'ON BY WEBB'AND `SECOND-BY;''VOGELSANG,'`THE;`rBOARD` OF"``ZONING
ADJUSTMENTS RECOMMEND tTHAT THE` PhArTNING`;COMMISSION"-UPHOLD_-THE-,_,
DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL�-EXCEPTION' -NO.; 81 88 -' "BY 'THE'`FOLLOWTNG"VOTE:
AYES: Webb, Cooper, Vogelsang, Crosby
NOES: None
-ABSTAIN:
ABSENT: Smith
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS__
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 81-81 (Continued from 1/6/82)
Appl- cants Charles' E Bollman/Beach Off -Road
TO-' ermit�'construction` of -i cement block building of 5, 500 square
feet -for_ automobi-le=-repa=ik , `located at 7151 Garfield Avenue,
'zoned M1-0, Light Industrial -District combined:with_oil--production.
Acting Chairman Cooper `informer tYie` Boarc�a;that: is_ r� fu- T'+ d7, h e;q est_-is
A`_ Categorical' Exemption";A Class :` 1E113_Ca1ifornia: Environmental- :Quality
Act; -1970�� __.. Y$ bg--:._z.:�« s:,,.� •�� -= ._.z
Acting Secretary Webb outlined_. proposal.-
Charles- Bollman was present4 to speak `ori--hs-appl'i`cation: 'He- stated
'that he had turned the building on his property as recommended by
the -Board as shown on revised plan. The applicant stated he; is_
not 'sure_ just when' construction--wil l''commence=`on' his ` plan:1_ The
applicant wa's advis°ed=-that` as he` has' been contacted -by_ "our: Land"
Use "Section_=o`f='Deve 16pment Servic_ es" -that should`'Administrat ire'
Review`No.=81�8I be approved=,''it would have no bearing on the
status -of -existing problems at his site...,_
Board=discussion'ensued: Conditions of`°Approval"'were discussed
With -:the -_applicant:_
ON.MOTION_.BY=SMITH'-AND SECOND BY VOGELSANG,~ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW.
NO.'81-81-WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
I
-4-. BZA 2/10/82
Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments
February 10, 1982
Page Five -
IMPOSED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
-The revised conceptual plot plan received January 27, 1982, shall
be the approved layout.
1. The following plans shall be submitted to the Development -.
Services Department prior to issuance of building permits: -
a. Landscape and -irrigation plan complying with Article, 979-
of.the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and landscaping --'-
specifications on file in -the Department of Public Works.'
-b. Rooftop mechanical equipment screening plan. Said plan
-shall indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical equip-
ment and shall delineate the type of material proposed
to screen said equipment.
C. A plan designating architectural details, such as,
color scheme and type of materials to be used (to match.
existing structure).
If above"plans comply with the modifications outlined'--.',
by the Board, said plans shall be approved and made -a.
permanent part of the administrative file.,
°2,- A parcel -map shall be filed prior to issuance of building
permits.
In its approval action-, the Board -of Zoning Adjustments considered
the following issues relating to the conceptual plan:
Traffic circulation and, -drives;
Parking layout;
- Lot area;
Lot width and lot -depth; -
Type of use and its relation to -property -and -improvements in
the immeulate vicinity;
Past administrative action regarding this property.
3: General- Conditions:
a. A copy of the recorded parcel map shall be filed
with -the --Department of Development Services prior -to
occupancy.-
b-. Twenty-two (22) feet of dedication"and street improve.
ment,plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public_ -
Works prior'to issuance of,building,=permits.
-5- BZA 2/10/82
Minutes: -H.-B.-Board of Zoning -Adjustments
-February "10, 1982
-Page -Sixx
;cd.T-;Str_eet. improvements. on- Garfield Avenue. sh_a1. 1 be_
completed prior= to, occupancy. L - -
AYES:-__ ___ Webb,- Cooper-,_ Vogelsang, Smith, Crosby_-
NOES-:--
ABSTAI�Ii
CONDITIONAL .EXCEPTION NO. 8'2*"'2_... - , - -
Applicant: BJ'&--B Construction Development Company
To permit a front entrance garage door to encroach 1314" into
the...required-22,-ft-., .front setback, -.located at 16352 Wildfire
Circle;;; zoned_ Rl;=- 81ii4le .Family' Residence District.
Acting Chairman Cooper informed the Board that this request
is :a=_Categorical' Ex emption`,-Class. 5,-California-Environmental, _
Quality�Act��1970.-= __._. ._. �- _ _-- -_-- -- _
Acting Secretary Webb-_introduced•the-application to:the:Board.
The.public�fiearing wa`sopened`by`Actng-Chairman-Cooper-withy
Mr: and'_Mrs: , James-F::.~Zahner; -_owners- of. -property 4and.-Mr,:,.;Richard
Ghanez--__Authorlied Agent -'for B-,&-_.B-Con'struction.Development-Company
present -to s`peak�in_favorLof;this,application
Mr.-Zahner-introduced~him self-to~the-Board and= -stated -that he
wishes=to seek approval -.. to' ;relo_ cafe,his`garage_:door-presently .A:..=-
on,-tfie_-dast;side �of structure; adjacent to a park (on-a;cul-de-
sac~street)=to=a`front entranceto the south,sideof,,structure.
He-stated-his"present:_driveway.�is�four:_or-aiv_e,-fee_t from, the park
and-that-children-on�-skate-boards, bicycles, etc. use his driveway
curb=cut for access into the park. He further -stated that his
driveway -is -,less than twelve(12)`actual�yards_to.;the--childrens
sand_box;which--is' used'by�very-,smali:.children. � Mr.__Zahner_:-said_
he and, hid twife;are-very cautious when using,-their-driveway„but:_=
still,.=as-it-zistori"a`_c61z-de`=Sac,'Atwis,-.a very -hazardous -situation
which _he-feel s-could_be• alleviated --by ,chang ing_-the__1o_cat_ ion,of_:
his `garage door"--.
The overfiangin of automobiles -in the"street •wasAof ymajor _concern
to-thd-Board-Members and was d scussedJwith-the=applicant. ;Mrs. __
Zahrier _stated -they -never park` their -<cars =-in -_their dr-ivewayR_�they - :
always _park "ahem in fhe::garage. It, -was -the: consensus of .the,.Board
that -by:,shortening-tYie new -drive approach -to such; an -extent, --the
average person would --riot leave the majority of their car overhanging
--in-the street _creating -a _illegal ,situation.:
The appl cant_had_originally^requested permission to construct _
a -six' _(6 ): foot _decorative fence encroaching a maximum of 15 ft.
into--the'-required 15-ft. setback -on his application. Discussion
-6- - BZA 2/10/82 -
Minutes: H-.B. Bo'ard'of Zoning Adjustments =
February 10, 1982"
Page Seven
carried. An agreement was reached with Mr. Zahner and Mr. Ghanez
that construction of a decorative fence not to exceed 42 inches
in height would be adequate for their needs and asked that their -
request fora six (6) foot wall to encroach up to 15 feet into
the 15 foot setback be eliminated from their conditional exception.
The public hearing was closed. -
ON MOTION BY CROSBY AND SECOND BY VOGELSANG, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION
... NO. 82-2 WAS APPROVED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON AND FINDINGS_ WITH
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL APPLICABLE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
REASON AND FINDINGS:
1. This property has unique characteristics because of its
configuration and placement -on a cul-de-sac creating a hardship.
2."-The granting' -of the Conditional Exception will not constitute
a grant of a special privilege inconsistent upon other properties
in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications.
3: -Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject
property, including size, shape, location and surroundings,"
the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to''-
deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other.
properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications.
4. The granting of a conditional exception is necessary in order
to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property
rights.
5. The granting of -a conditional exception will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property
in the same zone classifications.
6. The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely
affect the"General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach.,
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
The conceptual plot plan received January 13, 1982 shall be the
approved.layout with the -request on original application for a
six '(6) ft. decorative fence encroaching a maximum of 15 ft. into
the required 15 ft. setback eliminated.
In its approval action, the Board of Zoning"Adjustments considered
the following issues relating to the conceptual plan:
Traffic circulation and drives;
- Parking layout;
- Lot area;
Lot width -and lot depth;
Type of use and its relation to property and improvements in_.
the immediate vicinity.
-7- BZA 2/10/82
Minutes: H.B. -Board of Zoning Adjustments
February- 10,' 1982
Page Eight
General Conditions:
- 1---An—automatic--garage door opener shall be installed.
2.`-Curb-cut-to be -replaced with curbing per Department of
Public Works standards.
Webb ,a Cooper,-, Vogelsang, - Smith,., Crosby.
NOES: None - - - - - - - -
ABSTAIN:--.----. - None:
CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-1
Applicant:->RyrKel._Construction-Company_- _ y
To permit addition to exsting_.garage and con_version_ofgarage
for residen_tial-purposes,__thus,._ reducing the front yard setback -
to ten (10) feet, located_at"951i Orient Lane, zoned R1 - Single.
Family Residence District.
Actin Chairman,Cooperyinformed the this requ
g est is
a Categorical Exemption, Class. 5, California Environmental
Quality Act,= 1970
Acting Secretary --Webb introduced,the proposal_-and,mentioned
that the required front yard setback (per Code) -is at fifteen (15)
feet--in--lieu of- ten-(10) feet_ being requested.:
The -public hearing was opened with Mr. Charles Gilmore, property
owner, and_ -Mr-.-: Patrick Heartt,_, authorized, agent- -for-, Ry-Kel,
Construction.Com_pany,,-present-to speak-In=favor of_;Conditional
Exception No: 82-1. -
Mr.Heartt addressed the Board stating -that there is an existing
wing -_wall, -won the garage which extends out into the ten (10)
foot,setback.;.-.As- the.roof. line overhangs, they would like to
bring ,.they wall out to; the, end of. ,this particular-- wing .wall_ which
will: ailow;,a--very inexpensive room addition to -Mr.- Gilmore's home.
Upon'yreview of the plan by the Board Members, discussion carried
on the, -new; garage presently under construction,- for which permits
have previously been received. The plan showed two (2) driveways
which is=, allowed- by. Code - as long as there is -twenty -two -feet ,
between -them., -,,-The. e applicant_ was asked by_ the - Board if- he intended
to close�off_onof. them-. Mr. Gilmore replied, "No,'I have already
receiveda permit from Public Works Department and as I -have a
twenty foot-,trailer,;I would like.to keep this driveway apron along
the side- of. my; house to store_ my --trailer, which is screened by a
fence' allowing- my - trailer to -be kept out- of ' sight" .
-The public hearing was closed with no-one else present to speak
for or against this proposal.
1
_ -8- BZA 2/10/82
Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments
.'February 10, 1982
Page -Nine - t
Board discussion ensued. It was felt by the Board that an equal
compromise had been reached in that the applicant shall be
allowed a five (5) foot encroachment into. his front yard setback..
The applicant was directed to submit -a landscape plan, to the
Secretary of the Board for approval,- showing treatment of
existing .driveway and of front yard area.
ON MOTION BY COOPER AND SECOND BY SMITH, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION
NO" 82-1 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING -FINDINGS, REASONS, AND
-CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IMPOSED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
'FINDINGS AND REASONS:
1. The existing dwelling unit is positioned such on a cul-de-sac
that a -reasonable size room addition would be prohibited
without a minimal encroachment into the front yard setback.,
2. Addition would not impact neighborhood.
3. The granting of the Conditional Exception will not constitute
a grant of a special privilege inconsistent upon other properties
in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications.
4. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject
property, including size, shape, location, and surroundings,
the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to
deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications.
5. The granting -of a conditional exception'is necessary in order to
preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property.rights.
6. The granting of a conditional exception will not be materially.
detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in
the same zone classifications.
7. The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely
affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. -
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
The.revised conceptual plot -plan and elevations received January--
26, 1982, shall:be�the approved layout.
In its approval action, the Board of Zoning Adjustments considered
the -following issues.relating to the conceptual plan:
Traffic circulation and drives;
Parking layout;.".
-Lot-area;
- Lot width and -lot -depth;.
-9= BZA 2/10/82..
.3
Minutes:' H:B. Board of Zoning Adjustments -
February 10, 1982'.
Page -'-Ten
-_- Type. of -use and--its-relation to- property, and- improvements
in the immediate vicinity.
The -following plan shall be submitted to the Secretary of the
Board- prior to issuance of building permits'for approval-:
l._ Landscape plan showing treatment where existing
driveway is presently -located and of front .yard_- area.: _
GENERAL CONDITIONS: --
___ ____Top_of=.new-driveway shall be no closer than two (2) -
feet from. -the property line.
AYES: == = Webb, Cooper, Vogelsang, Smith, - Crosby
NOES:, None
ABSTAIN: -:-None _ ------
USE PERMIT_ NO. 81-46 (Tabled on 1/6/82)
Applicant: Business Properties
To permit -construction of a Commercial -Shopping Center to be
located -on Northeast corner'ofthe intersection of - Warner Avenue
and Golden West Street, -zoned C2, Community'Business District.
Acting Chairman'Cooper stated that Use Permit No:-81-46 is-
covered -by -Negative Declaration No.-81-56. = =
ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY WEBB, THE BOARD HAVING FOUND -
THAT THE'PROPOSED-PROJECT WILL NOTHAVEA SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE---'':
EFFECT ON --THE -PHYSICAL- ENVIRONMENT; ---ADOPTED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NO. 81-56,- BY -THE --FOLLOWING VOTE: --
AYES: f --------Webb-, Cooper, Vogelsang,, Smith, -Crosby
NOES: = - = None
ABSTAIN: None
Acting Secretary -Webb outlined proposal and stated that -this
project'has-been to the BZA for -review and -was-tabled on 1/6/82.
The proposal was then forwarded to' -the Huntington Beach Redevelop-
ment Agency for their review of the conceptual -plan in a redevelop-
.-ment:project-area. The Huntington -Beach Redevelopment Agency
reviewed and approved_ the conceptual plan for this commercial.
shopping center with conditions imposed of which a -copy was
sent to Business Properties on February 4, 1982. The Agency
then directed the Board of.Zoning Adjustments'to review and
take -action on Use Permit No. 81-46.
The -public -hearing was opened by Acting Chairman Cooper with _-
Mr. -Joseph Walthour,- Authorized Agent for Business -Properties,
present to speak in favor of Use.Permit No. 81-46.
I-
I
-10- BZA 2/10/82�.,
Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments
February 10, 1982
Page Eleven
Mr. Walthour addressed the Board and stated he wished to
mention the fact that the Business Properties people were ;
told that the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Meeting
would be a public hearing. He said his general partner and
legal council were present at the Agency meeting but were unable
to speak as it was not a public hearing.
Conditions of Approval were discussed between the Board and':`the
applicant.
There being no other persons present to speak for -or against
this application, the public -hearing was closed-.
Board discussion ensued covering -fire requirements.
,ONMOTION BY WEBB'.AND SECOND BY VOGELSANG, USE PERMIT NO. 81-46-
WAS APPROVED WITH -FOLLOWING FINDINGS.AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -
APPLICABLE, WITH VOTE AS FOLLOWS:
FINDINGS:
1. The establishment,- maintenance and operation of the use will
not be detrimental to:
a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the
vicinity;
b.-. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use
or building. _
-2. The -granting of a use permit will not adversely affect the
General Plan of. -the City of Huntington Beach:
3.. The proposal, is consistent with the City's General Plan
of Land Use.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
The revised conceptual plot plan -and elevations received
"February 9, 1982, shall be.the approved layout.
In its approval action, the Board of Zoning Adjustments considered
the following issues:relating to the conceptual plan:
Traffic circtilation and drives;
Parking layout;
Lot area;
Lot width -and -lot -depth;
Type -of use and its relation -to property and improvements in
the immediate -vicinity;
-11- -BZA-2/10/82
Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments
February 10, 1982
Page Twelve
-Past admiiiistrative--action`regarding this property.
Plans to be submitted and General -Conditions:
1.- A parcel map shall be -filed in order to -consolidate -all parcels
on the--property-prior to issuance of building permits.
2. A detailed.landscaping plan shall be submitted,for-review--
-and approval -.by staff.-
3. --Pad P--"Building Limit --Line" shall also -include -any necessary
parking within the boundaries.
4.- A -sign program shall be submitted forreviewand approval by.
the Department of -Development Services prior to use or --
occupancy. -
5. A ten (10) foot setback with intensified landscaping shall be
- provided to the -easterly end -of -the property in order to
adequately buffer the abutting residential property.--
6. All driveways and parking lot aisles are -to be-properly--
located'and of -sufficient width'to-provide adequate -circulation
for emergency vehicles, trucks, and automobiles as determined
by staff. -
7. A detailed section be provided of -the north end of the property
from Murdy Park and a design and/or -buffering -treatment be'pro-
vided to -mitigate the visual impact -of the commercial -center.
8. All improvements on Warner Avenue and Golden_west`-Street. are
required -to -be -installed prior to"occupancy in order to-Iprovide
adequate access -and traffic control.
9. K redorded copy of-- the, "Agreement' of -Covenants, Conditions,
and Establishment of Restrictions and Grants of"Easements"
between Business Properties -and William Landis shall -be _
submitted 'to the "staff for, review and approval._
10.- In order to minimize traffic conflicts on Goldenwest and Warner,
'the developer shall be required to pay fifty (50) percent of
the cost for construction of center medians and landscaping;
as indicated on plot plan. The medians shall be -landscaped
and have architectural amenities -in accordance with current
City standards.
11'. All future -structures on -the site shall be architecturally -
compatible with the first phase of development.
12. A -detailed exterior energy -efficient lighting plan shall -be
submitted to staff for review and approval.
-12- BZA-- 2/10/82
n
Minutes:- H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments
February 10, 1982
Page
Thirteen
13:
Parking lot at the'rear of Buildings E,
F, and G shall be
used -for -employee parking, since -it is
not a convenient,
location for customers -use,
14.
Parking plan including number and size
of spaces shall.".
comply with the parking requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance:
15.
Fire access shall be provided to buildings
A,B,C,E,F, and
G.
16.
Project shall meet all fire code specifications
and ordinances
including, but not limited to, on-site.fire
hydrants, fire
sprinkler system and fire lane posting
per Fire Department -
standards.
AYES:
Webb, Cooper, Vogelsang, Smith,
Crosby
NOES:,
None
ABSTAIN:
None
F
THERE
BEING NO FURTHER -BUSINESS, THE MEETING
WAS ADJOURNED.
---
Florence WEbb, Acting Secretary
Board
of Zoning Adjustments
-13- BZA 2/10/82